On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:19:31PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> The GNU GPL is the appropriate license here, please use it instead of
> contributing to license proliferation, as recommended by Debian's
> guide for upstreams:
As someone who has written Free Software for nearly 20 years, I
completely ag
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>Do you know a license somehow similar in spirit than mine which I could
> use?
> It would be nice to have something that oblidges 'closed distributions' to
> publish
> at least their sources as required by some software in RHEL which i
Dear Gergely Nagy, Dear members of Debian-legal
Do you know a license somehow similar in spirit than mine which I
could use?
It would be nice to have something that oblidges 'closed distributions'
to publish
at least their sources as required by some software in RHEL which is
what puts
the
Elmar Stellnberger writes:
> S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/
>
> Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked
> edition
> of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software.
> As you can understand and as I have already partial
On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal.
>
> Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another
> license written for fun.
+1.
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnbe
I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal.
Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another
license written for fun.
Thanks for your work,
Paul
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>
> S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at
S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/
Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked
edition
of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software.
As you can understand and as I have already partially described there are
still issues t
Elmar Stellnberger writes:
> Am 04.11.13 18:43, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte
>> mailto:paul...@debian.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>> > Is it really a problem? If yes then
Am 04.11.13 17:56, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was
especially designed for
distributions available free of charge like Debian
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for
> > distributors like Debian.
>
> Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines:
>
> http://www
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for
> distributors like Debian.
Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
point 8 is "License Must Not B
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was
> especially designed for
> distributions available free of charge like Debian. The license has been
> revised thouroughl
Package: sponsorship-requests
Subject: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xchroot":
* Package name: xchroot
Version : 2.3.2-9
Upstream Author : Elmar Stellnberger
* URL : https:/
13 matches
Mail list logo
